Keystone and the Udall-Gardner race

There is a push-pull relationship between conservation and job creation in Colorado. | AP Photo

Instead, Udall says altering the Colorado constitution at the ballot box isn’t the way to address fracking, calling the measures a “blunt tool.” He urged the state Legislature to work with industry, greens and others to address communities’ concerns over oil and gas production.

The state’s legislative session ended last week with no agreement by lawmakers. But several Colorado political observers said the Legislature may take up the issue in a special session, a move that seemed increasingly likely late last week.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“I believe still we’ll find a way forward that doesn’t involve a ballot initiative,” Udall said.

Polis has indicated he may drop his proposed ballot measures if the Legislature comes to a solution he finds acceptable. While some activists insist they’ll plow ahead with the ballot initiatives even if there is a legislative compromise, the campaign would lose much of its momentum without Polis’ high-profile backing.

Gardner’s position on the ballot initiatives: They’re a bad idea, period. “These are job-killing measures that are designed to kill 100,000 jobs in Colorado,” he said.

Gardner has taken an increasingly vocal role on energy issues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and House GOP leaders have often put him in the spotlight. While a number of lawmakers have offered bills to expand natural gas exports in response to the Ukraine crisis, House leaders have chosen Gardner’s version as their prime vehicle on the issue. The House is expected to vote on the bill this summer, likely handing Gardner an election-year victory.

Natural gas exports are at least one idea that Udall and Gardner strongly agree on. The two are sponsoring nearly identical bills on the subject.

On the other hand, Udall has taken no position yet on the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that draws strong public support in most national polls while inspiring passionate opposition from the green Democratic base and liberal donors like Steyer. The oil pipeline wouldn’t run through Colorado but has taken on tremendous symbolic importance among environmentalists and fossil fuel supporters alike.

In March 2013, Udall voted against a nonbinding Senate budget amendment urging approval of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline, even as 17 of his Democratic colleagues voted for it. If senators take up Keystone again before November, Udall would probably vote against any measure forcing approval of the project, given his opposition to circumventing the administration’s existing review process.

“If we were building the pipeline in Colorado, we’d expect a science-based decision,” Udall said. “That’s the standard I’ve applied to this discussion.”

In contrast, Gardner has repeatedly voted for House Republican legislation to greenlight the pipeline. He has used his spot on Energy and Commerce as a megaphone for his criticism of the Obama administration’s yearslong Keystone review.

DEMS DIVIDED

Despite their frustration with Udall, Colorado anti-fracking activists outlined no plans to stay home on Election Day. Udall also still has the support of major environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters, which has not yet endorsed the Democrat but has been highly critical of Gardner.

But the threat of the anti-fracking ballot measures has undeniably rattled the state’s Democrats.

The push to limit drilling got a high-profile jolt in 2012 when Longmont, a city in Gardner’s district, voted to ban fracking. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Hickenlooper’s administration subsequently sued the town over the ban, arguing that the state has control over fossil fuel development. Last November, four other cities passed similar bans or moratoriums, setting in motion the current push to recognize local control.

Hickenlooper, who also faces reelection this year, has taken heat from green groups for joining the suit against Longmont. Emotions are running high on the pro-drilling side too: State GOP Chairman Ryan Call apologized this month for writing that “we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists” in a tweet about Polis’ ballot initiatives, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.

One of the ballot proposals’ biggest opponents, a well-funded coalition of business and labor groups called Coloradans for Responsible Reform, has recruited another big Democratic name as one of its leaders: former Obama administration Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who was also a senator from Colorado.

“It’s something that has to be watched to make sure that we don’t set the progress back in the state of Colorado,” said Salazar, a co-chairman of the group, adding that any measure that led to a ban on oil and gas development “would have a huge consequence on the economic vitality of the state.” (The University of Colorado study estimated that a statewide fracking ban would cost the state $8 billion and 68,000 jobs over a five-year period.)

Salazar said it’s too early to tell what effect the ballot measures will have on Udall’s campaign, calling the local-control issue a “distraction” from the Senate race.

Coloradans for Responsible Reform has so far raised $770,000 from the 70 organizations supporting the group. Based on its past activities, it could raise much more: The group spent $6.8 million in 2010 to defeat a series of ballot measures that would have mandated limits on taxes.

“We’ve never lost,” said Kelly Brough, president of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and another co-chair of the group, explaining that the organization has defeated every ballot measure it campaigned against over the past 20 years.

But drilling supporters will have a deep-pocketed foe if Steyer enters the fray. Steyer has promised to spend $100 million or more to make environmental issues a prime concern in this year’s elections, and aides from the hedge fund billionaire’s super PAC, NextGen Climate Action, have spoken with Polis about joining his anti-fracking fight. But a NextGen official said Steyer has not yet made any decisions.

Steyer isn’t a stranger to the kind of local-control measures being considered in Colorado. He’s advocating a measure in California that would require two-thirds of a county’s voters to sign off before fracking can be allowed.

If he steps into the Colorado fight, he would hand ammunition to Republicans, who are already trying to tar Udall and other Democratic senators as “beholden” to Steyer’s donations. “It’s clear that the only energy agenda Mark Udall supports is the dangerous liberal Barack Obama-Harry Reid-Tom Steyer agenda that would hurt middle-class families and workers in Colorado,” said one National Republican Senatorial Committee post last week citing Udall’s lack of a stance on Keystone.

At the same time, Steyer’s group is also looking into whether Colorado has a bloc of Republican and independent voters who are so frustrated by fracking that they could be persuaded to vote against candidates like Gardner who wholeheartedly support the practice. One NextGen official said the group is mulling an “entire organizing effort” around those voters.

Asked what his reaction would be if Steyer got involved in Colorado politics, Udall said, “We’re going to have a lot of outside actors in the state, but my focus is going to be on the campaign.”

It’s unclear exactly what kind of initiative might make it onto the ballot. Anti-fracking groups have filed several local-control measures, which have to clear procedural and legal hurdles, including securing 86,000 verified signatures.

“We’re very well aware, having been deeply involved in several of these local ballot campaigns, that Coloradans want the right to say what happens next to their homes and where they send their kids to school,” said Sam Schabacker, Western region director at the advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Schabacker took aim at Udall for embracing fracking and proposing legislation to export natural gas, calling him “deeply out of touch with his constituency and his legacy.”

“Sen. Udall has done a good job of representing the balanced middle,” said Hughes, who managed Michael Bennet’s Senate campaign in 2009 and 2010. “Overall, he still has strong support not only from the base but from moderate voters who look at those issues.”